JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. This contempt application has been filed for alleged willful violation of an order dated November 28, 2018, whereby an application being CAN 1270 of 2017 filed in a first appeal being FA 316 of 2016 (Shyamal Ray @ Roy v. Sandip Das & Ors.) was disposed of. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

“The application is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status as on today with regard to the possession, nature and character of the suit properties till the disposal of the appeal.”

2. The first appeal is still pending. Accordingly, the order of status quo extracted above is still in force.

3. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that with full knowledge of the status quo order, the respondent started construction on the second floor of the building in question. He submitted that various complaints were lodged by the petitioner with the concerned Authorities including the Police, the local councillor, the local member of the Legislative Assembly and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). Learned Senior Counsel, drew our attention to copies of such complaints which are annexed to the contempt petition.

4. According to learned Senior Counsel, in spite of such complaints, none of the authorities took any action excepting KMC which issued a stop work noticed dated March 21, 2022, to the respondent herein under Section 401 of the KMC Act. This was after the petitioner lodged a written complaint dated March 19, 2022, with the Executive Engineer (Building), Borough-V, KMC. Mr. Bhattacharya also drew to our attention certain photographs annexed to the contempt petition to substantiate the petitioner’s contention that the respondent has made new construction in breach of the status quo order.

5. Appearing for the respondent, Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel, submitted that the aforesaid order of status quo has not been breached in any manner by the respondent. The respondent is a law abiding citizen having highest regard for orders of Court. The respondent never had nor now has any intention of acting in breach of the Court’s order.

6. Learned Counsel submitted that the building in question, like all other buildings on Sashi Bhusan Dey Street, Kolkata, is very old. The building suffered serious damage during cyclone ‘Amphan’. The respondent and his family reside in that building. It became absolutely essential to do certain basic repairing works to keep the building in a habitable state. No new construction work has been undertaken. The repairing works have also been stopped upon receipt of notice under Section 401 of the KMC Act.

7. Being prima facie of the view that the respondent had made new construction thereby changing the nature and character of the concerned suit property, we had issued a Rule on January 30, 2023. Pursuant to service of the Rule, the respondent personally appeared in Court and filed an affidavit in response to the rule. The petitioner subsequently filed his rejoinder to such response.

8. Our prima facie satisfaction that the respondent has acted in violation of the order of status quo was based on the photographs annexed to the contempt petition as also the notice under Section 401 of the KMC Act which describes the unauthorized construction as “RCC slab casting partly at 2nd floor roof along with new room at 2nd floor. Without sanction.” It appeared to us, what the respondent has done is more than repairing works and included new construction.

9. In the affidavit filed by the respondent in answer to the Rule, the respondent has consistently maintained that he has made no new construction. Only repair works have been done. For such purpose some masonry materials was stored at the said premises. No new room has been constructed. The petitioner is in cahoots with the KMC Authorities. This will appear from the fact that the KMC Authorities acted with unusual promptitude by issuing stop work notice to the respondent on Ma